Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 30, 2014 1:30am-2:01am PST

1:30 am
will be hopefully here to answer questions i want to thank supervisor farrell for allowing us to have the budget meeting last week and pleased he's here to continue our conversation in the last in our meeting on wednesday there were a number of amendments made and i wanted to thank the many members of the public members of the community from the retailer workers themselves to small businesses and on that testified and also the businesses and on that testified as well and wanted to thank the director of our office of small business and director of our labor enforcement dan for weighing in on that important legislation and our retailer workers bill of rights has been given through many, many meetings and now hearings and we're almost over the finish line i wanted to say for today's
1:31 am
hearing we have a number of people that we are continuing the public comment period supervisor farrell but i'll do my best to listen to the public comment but my attention in speaking with president chiu over the phone this morning and others i'll be making a motion it's critical i think to keep within any part of the legislation to eliminate an amendment that was made last week proposed 2 hundred thresholds employee for the retention policy and for me keeping the legislation has strong as possible and the co-sponsors have supervisor chiu and supervisor avalos and supervisor campos for this section and that amendment that was made they're not a strong rational for it i think it sits and persistent to create a loophole where thousands of workers will be impacted i'll move we eliminate that threshold
1:32 am
of 2 hundred employees i think in looking at other examples i think it was given at the meeting i don't think it will be there's a persistent for example, in the hospitality square footage there's a sliding scale threshold and in the 0 grocery store worker retention there's is a square footage threshold and then there's no threshold in the scombrarl cud kidal ordinance we need to keep the ordinance strong from the retailer workers to keep this as strong as possible this will that is not one i can agree it so i'll be making that motion also there have discussion from the motion made and supervisor
1:33 am
avalos to change the employer dimension too the 20 thresholds as proposed in the original legislation to one employee so in fiscal eliminating the 20 employee trerldz and in decisions with sf loma and the coalition and supervisor avalos i'll say that i don't know that in conversation with the planning department and from our own work on the formula retail ordinances that pass or undergoing going through the board that passed unanimously at a previous meeting many say a will that that will cover only a small number of employees and i think that this one is one where i can agree to the original language though i know that supervisor avalos and sf loma feels strongly i'm convinced from the data it's a small
1:34 am
enough will that i can feel comfortable along with president chiu to add that back in and i'll be casting a motion to add that back in to 20 i know that there will be decision on that item also i know we'll have discussion on the 6 months fiscal dates with the six months wrap up that president chiu proposed and strong feelings from the coalition i've been working that the way too long and 6 months effective date should be the compromises or the agreement and not to have a 6 month wrap up but i'll be listening to the testimony i feel strongly that we need sometime to extend the fiscal date from 3 to 6 months that makes sense but i'm in agreement with our coalition is adding an
1:35 am
additional 6 months is not necessary this is legislation that impacts up to 40 thousand retailer workers protecting go workers and larger immigrants and adding that 6 months means people won't have stronger rights as retailer workers i think the goal is to insure the protection of economic security of tens of thousands of retailer workers in the city i'll be listening to the testimony but my intention is to consider 6 month fiscal date but not 6 months with that i'm i'm going to turn it over to my colleagues. >> supervisor mar i will given i wasn't here i'll have questions but certainly we can
1:36 am
do public comment supervisor mar and testimony mr. egon you spoke last week is there anything else you want to add or speak about. >> good afternoon ted from the krerlz controller's office our office filed an environmental impact report and i'm sure the supervisors doesn't read it i'll i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you supervisor mar. >> thank you, mr. egging on i think i should acknowledge we have we have a person regina and other colleague they made remarks at the last meeting i'll start with the list of speakers and call them up
1:37 am
(calling names) so if your name has been called you can come and speak when you. >> my name is see ms. cady i leave the work and family coalition i didn't speak in the last hearing i want to express my support for this legislation on the scheduling and workers bill of rights in our statewide coalition we represent parents who rely on childcare and this is very, very important legislation i'm happy to see the working together and the compromise we also have had the opportunity to work closely with jobs of justice local 2 and s c
1:38 am
i u and continuing to work with them on prevention that makes san francisco a leader on the issue that is impacting young children and young worker and we're hearing everyday about you know how important having a predict schedule is for the quality of life i'm encouraging everyone to you know work together to have the best legislation possible to move forward i'm excited about this thank you. >> good afternoon jim lazarus from the chamber of commerce thank you for your comments we continued to have as you are aware significant problems with this legislation we think they can be worked out with time i may not have the time but we appreciate the 20 employee thresholds back in and the
1:39 am
retention of 2 hundred is not major but how do this negotiates change that has over 15 thousand square feet that fenced hotels and major restaurant and catering companies it's unclear this supercedes i think it was passed a number of months ago regarding part-time employees we are concerned about the employers to if i vacancies and manage a workforce for full-time and part-time employees we rec recognize the needs and rights of employees to give the employers they want to work additional hours available but can't support anything that restricts the right of an employer to determine the hours and workforce composition regarding the fixed work
1:40 am
schedule issues notice requirements of 14 days redundantly were acceptable to us as well as changes in the threshold for changes and work schedules and other comments i'll make if you have the questions while deliberating the two pieces of legislation. >> thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors thank you for your time samantha golden gate restaurant association we would like to express our concern with the legislation we appreciate the amendment to remain to go back to the 20 limit employment for small businesses we have issues along with or along with the chamber of commerce we advocate for a posting that the employees have the right to request additional hours as jim said limiting the employers
1:41 am
ability to hire is detrimental we have issues with the 2 week schedules we worry about the changes that made within the 7 days in the ordinance can be harmful to the business has a whole so we would like to continue to work towards a better solution and lastly we would like to request that we continue to work on that legislation we feel it can be a very a great piece of legislation given the times we can work on it together thank you. >> thank you ma'am. >> thank you, supervisors hopefully utility had not to read the continues and letters on both items so one of the key directives and requests and recommendations for the board of supervisors to continue to work with the business community to
1:42 am
resolve their key issues want to extend you know my appreciation and the commissions appreciation to return the distinction back to 20 employees at the business center we facilitate and do franchisee businesses one foot their product and things of that is formula retail but how they operate their business is a small business they don't have the benefits of having someone from a counterpart office foresight location. >> and things like that and one of the key things as jim lazarus pointed out in supervisor mar's legislation regarding this additional work hours again, the major concern about the ability if you're look at aggregate
1:43 am
hours this is calibrating an employers ability to make sure there's adequate staffing to fulfill that mandate may need to adjust the full-timers schedules to it is a complicated nuance than the intention of what that section is ininsinuating i want to request we make sure that before this is finalized it if preclude on employer the ability to hire an adequate staff at all times if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> okay. thank you >> next speaker. >> supervisors thank you and i want to thank supervisor mar in particular for casing this important legislation i want to raise a concern that was highlighted at an intended
1:44 am
consequence last week with respect to the collective bargaining a there's a category of employees if this city working at restaurant and bars in hotels upscale hotels in the city which i think there are inadvertently being captured as a result for baurgsdz formula retail was not intended to cover hotels with particular zones that they did formula retail has applied to it is not addressed hotels but there are numerous restaurants and bars and hotels where the employees are employed by the management company they have different working conditions and income standards from inincreased restaurant and bars it is a sub market between the eating and drinking spaces
1:45 am
where long-standing practices that have the support of employees that maybe upset by this ordinance i want to urge you to fix this critical flaw in this legislation i know it was inintended but to make sure the category of employees employed by management companies whether or not they work at eating and drinking places are not captured in this definition i believe that was the original intent i urge you to make that clear before that governor's office and happy to question questions. >> thank you, thank you mr. lewis colleagues we've been working up until the last minute that mr. lewis and local 2 has brought up but your understanding it's tricky to fix this flaw my intention to
1:46 am
introduce trailing legislation that comes at a later time but not language that holds up tens of thousand of retail workers i'm making a commitment to follow up with the trailing legislation but i appreciate mr. lewis's attendance to this i'll say that nick from my staff is doing his by the evidence with the city attorney's office but we can't hold up the legislation but i'll foil with the trailing legislation thank you, mr. lewis. >> next speaker >> jane from the s f w thank you for the legislation and the contracted property services and security happy to see that in there i wanted to support the request that we address this issue around restaurants and side hotels and actually it is
1:47 am
important for the vacs advocates we continue to supporting each other and rather have this dealt with up front but it's a big deal we make sure there is no intended consequences and workers support each other as we try to improve things i wanted to say we approve the six months waiting period but no ramp up period after that and agree that 6 months is enough and to say we're against the 2 hundred thresholds for job retention as supervisor mar said earlier there's no threshold in the city law around janitorial job retention and actually, the state law this displaced janitorial acts it's it would be the big flaws we want to see for security officers and railway employees working in those establishment we don't have that
1:48 am
threshold in there thank you. >> supervisors connie vice president of the labor council i want to relying reiterate what jan said about really thanking you for this work we read in the paper another new mall in candle stick park and the railway workers need those kinds of rights we're giving them in terms of present schedules, etc. so the time is now but the other thing about those will amendments yes, we support only the 6 month ramp up we know that once the mayor signs it there's the 6 mother waiting period that's enough time we agree with its not necessary for the 2 hundred people but we also want to support local 2 on this this
1:49 am
is something that local 2 and the rest of us have been talking about this is not a big deal if it details the process one week because the lawyers feed need to figure out this we'll willing to wait and move the whole thing forward that allows all the parties to be here technique and encourage you to figure out today or tomorrow and take the week and move the whole process forward on the 25th. >> thank you, thank you ms. ford. >> good afternoon supervisors. thank you again for taking the leadership on this really needed legislation again, i want to echo what we're really existed to have this legislation a lot of our members who works on formula retail expressed how are they going to
1:50 am
be able to stay in san francisco and to move into the bmr units if they don't have stable adequate jobs that will let them stay here a lot of times the workers don't have two hours or they flip 0 flop on their hours and instead of being able to have a stable job and stable income as well as schedules they're in the mercy of their employer and on top of that it's effecting their family family schedules and they want to really see san francisco to adhere to the needs of families adults and people that work in formula retail so on behalf of them i'm encouraging you to please move this forward and i want to echo one more week it's feinstein business owner fine
1:51 am
but definitely move forward because 40 thousand workers are ready for this to happen and have a livelihood in san francisco. >> good afternoon. i'm jordan with jobs for justice i want to thank supervisor mar and president chiu for your leadership on that groundbreaking policy that will lift up 40 thousand formula retail workers in the city i mean, there's a lot of attention been focused 0 on our effort nationally there are groundbreaking policies were in the lead of scheduling policy in the nation i want to speak to the 6 amendments that were introduced at the committee hearing last week and i have an actual memo from our coalition from the san francisco labor council and the
1:52 am
california worker council we're the coalitions that are challenged groups to work with the president chiu this outlines our information on 6 amendments but to summarize them we're opposed to the amendment that will add the 2 hundred employee more stlerld to the retention policy and opposed to the amendment that will reduce the employer recordkeeping environment from 40 down to 3 years and supportive of the operate active date for the months to 6 months along the additional six months wrap up period is not include and finally, we are now opposed to the amendment to remove the 20 employee told her so long as we can see the data that's a small
1:53 am
number of employers that needs the redemption. >> is there monthly that wants to speak that has not been called. >> mr. chair, i ask we close public comment. >> public comment is closed. >> so let me starting by saying thank you so much for everyone that came out to this last follow-up to our budget meeting last speaker referenced a document from one of the coalitions that has been working hard on that i want to thank president chiu and jane cassidy for working on the predict task force schedule and the chamber of commerce and the others and donald lovett and other for informing groundbreaking piece
1:54 am
of legislation as well also let me ask my colleagues to really understand how critical this piece of legislation is for our city not only the 40 thousand plus retail low wage workers lifting them up for the minimum wage and this can have a huge impact of the low what this families but we're setting a persistent that will be followed by many other cities and oracle efforts around the city so keeping this legislation is s as strong as possible it critical for organizations that put they're hard efforts into drafting this in my conversations with president chiu to make this enforceable but to make and share communities are aware and workers are aware of their
1:55 am
rights it's going to take that period of time and the effective date from 3 to 6 months is an important one i'll be making the motion several motions right now to change what we moved out of committee in our wednesday budget committee meeting the first one is - >> if you wouldn't mind can we have a this bit of dialog i'm if it's okay. i have questions we'll see in terms of the discussion but think this is alters clarification from anywhere prospective and first of all, i want to say thank you for bringing this up with president chiu i think that certainly those of us who are partners with the kids we have parents that are depending on on
1:56 am
childcare so i really appreciate that addressing this issue it is all about how we get there on the policy here so a few things looked like to understand supervisor mar i think in our legislation just the notion the apartment worker as the core this idea here the notion of a full-time person needs employment i've tried to look at the e-mails i've gotten if a full-time person leaves employment hear the business is going to hire another full-time employee now the first step is for the full-time people to get the hours and there's a tension between allowing employers to be able to operate the way they can
1:57 am
to have a successful business versus you know giving a lot of rights to employees there's a balancing act but how does that work things like christmastime and things like that we're about to head up but certainly a true definition of retail workers and people shopping for kids how do you think about that and balancing that right there. >> i know that for apartment workers many of them that we've informed our legislation from say that sometimes employers will offer hours to temp workers that's the consideration in our definition of fair neutrons for apartment workers not just any job in jobs are different from apartment workers that's the hours with the same qualifications with the same
1:58 am
type of job i think the office of lash enforcement will have to look at it but that's my understanding the employer could offer that to a different working but the same qualifications and experience levels that apartment worker should have the right to those hours not a temp worker or someone to create nor apartment workers when many of the apartments workers need those hours to pay and support their family. >> i totally appreciate that again, i question around a full-time person does that go to permeate people that's not the staffing model what with it looks like this is my question. >> and then we're not talking about small businesses but large
1:59 am
clangz like the one in candle stick point and in the mall or the gap or different types of employers that can give more hours to part time workers. >> so. >> few other things contractors of formula retail folks so the macy's hires a janitorial staff that's not a formula retail organization is that the question for the da or whether it applies to the smaller entity because it applies to the major retailer. >> it is going to apply to custodial theirs part of the janitorial entity and like those folks the custodial workers need rights and this provides that level of security four many of
2:00 am
the hard working custodians. >> so the custodian team they're there. >> i did want to clarify that the requirements for let's see for property service contractors perform security are in the chiu and the mar so it's consistent as well. >> okay and just out of curiosity i understand that maybe this was a committee last weekend that kind of the waving for alcoholic bargaining was taken out i understand that exists in other ordinances just terms of policy prospective on


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on